Today the US Census Bureau announced that the nation’s poverty rate remained at 15% in 2011 after increasing each of the previous three year. President Obama and Mitt Romney both responded via online video messages.

Census numbers show that over 46 million people in America now live below the poverty line, including 16.1 million children. In 2011, the median household income fell 1.5% to $50,054. Poverty rates for blacks, 27.6%, and Hispanics, 25.3%, were twice as high as the rate for whites.

Obama’s poverty video cites the Biblical mandate to help the least fortunate. “The Bible calls on us to be our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper, and I believe that as a public servant, I must do my part to answer that call,” the President says in the video. His message is pointed: America “can’t ask the poor, the sick, or those with disabilities to sacrifice even more, or ask the middle-class to pay more, just so we can offer massive new tax cuts to those who’ve been blessed with the most. It’s not just bad economics, it’s morally wrong.”

Romney’s video outlines his economic plan, too. “If we’re going to help lift our brothers and sisters out of poverty we must restore our economy and reduce the debt,” he says. “I support means testing, where more money goes to those in need, and a little less goes to those who are able to support themselves.”

Christian leaders—including Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, an organization of Christian activists, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, Sister Simone Campbell, and Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference —formed a group called “Circle of Protection” last year to combat poverty, pledging their efforts for “fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice” and for resisting “budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people.” Obama’s and Romney’s videos are available on Sojourner’s website.

“Record rates of poverty are unconscionable in this nation,” Wallis says. “I hope it makes a big difference in the public debate this election cycle.”

Romney/Bain played in the same waters that destroyed our economy by using debt to enrich themselves. I don't think a lot of voters understand that what Romney amp; Bain did with companies is no different than what the banks did with home-owners.

Convince them to take out loans, get their cut, right off the top, let the home-owner to drown in their own debt, and then snatch up the house and sell it for pennies on the dollar.

Exploding The Reagan Myth What is it about Ronald Reagan that makes so many people on the right and the left go all mushy? Republicans talk about the man as if he was a demigod of some sort. During the GOP primaries, he was mentioned in nearly every debate, and always in glowing terms. Democrats rightly note that many of Reagan's policies would be considered “too liberal” by the current Republican Party, which has been teabagged into what should be oblivion, but they seem almost too afraid of offending "Reagan Democrats" to actually criticize him.

I think it's time we cleared the air, and told the truth about Saint Reagan. Let's start with the fact that not only was he not the saint he's made out to be; he really wasn't that great of a president. That he was slightly more competent than either of the two Bushes does not put him on a par with Lincoln, Washington or FDR. But the myths about Reagan are so persistent that even now, even some lefties actually compare President Obama to him. There is no comparison to be made between Reagan and Obama. Obama is actually competent.

For your edification, and so that you can roll your eyes at anyone who tells you how wonderful Saint Reagan was, here are refutations of some of the most common myths. Enjoy.

Ronald Reagan did NOT cut taxes for most people -- Like George W. Bush, Reagan reduced taxes only on the very rich. Unlike George W. Bush, he actually raised them on the rest of us, when all was said and done. When Reagan took office, the top tax rate was 50%. When he left office, the top tax rate was 28%. That’s a 44% decrease in the tax rate, just for making a lot of money. Even during the initial round of tax cuts, no one else got a tax cut even close to that.

Not only that, but the modest decrease for the middle class and working class didn't last long, in any case. Payroll taxes went up significantly when Social Security and Medicare were overhauled beginning in 1983, and when the income tax system was “simplified” in the Tax “Reform” Act of 1986, a lot of deductions that the middle class had depended upon up to that point went away, in favor of the “standard deduction.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office ("Congressional Study: Tax Progressivity and Income Distribution," 26 March 1990. CIS#H782-11), while the effective tax rate for the rich went down, the tax rate for everyone else went up. This is how taxes for various families changed during the Reagan years.

Quintile 1980 1985 1990 % Change -1980-1990

Lowest 20% 8.4 10.6 9.7 16.1

Second 20% 15.7 16.1 16.7 6

Third 20% 20 19.3 20.3 1.2

Fourth 20% 23 21.7 22.5 -2.2

Highest 20% 27.3 24 25.8 -5.5

Top 1% 31.8 24.9 27.2 -14.4

That’s right; numbers don’t lie. Taxes for the rich went down under Reagan, and taxes for the poor and middle class went up.

Getting back to the Tax “Reform” Act of 1986. Everyone’s income taxes went down a bit with that one, but it didn’t even come close to covering the increase in payroll taxes that the non-rich had experienced just a year or two earlier. The initial intent of this reform, which was led by Rep. Bill Bradley, a true progressive in many ways, was to overhaul the tax code and make it simpler and more fair. We got the "simpler," but the "more fair" was lacking in the end. This is the effective income (NOT payroll) tax rate, when Reagan oversaw tax “reform:”

Income Bracket Size of Tax Cut Savings per Tax Return

Under $10,000 11% $37

10-20,000 6 69

20-30,000 11 300

30-40,000 11 467

40-50,000 16 1,000

50-75,000 16 1,523

75-100,000 18 3,034

100-200,000 22 7,203

200-500,000 27 24,603

500,000 - 1 million 34 86,084

Over $1 million 31 281,033

Numbers do not lie; taxes for most people went up under Ronald Reagan, not down.

To his credit, Reagan did expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helped the very poor escape taxes, but it left out the middle class for the most part. And let's get real here; the fact that he had to raise taxes right after he lowered them should demonstrate to folks that low tax rates do not increase tax revenues.

Which leads us to another Reagan myth:

Supply-side economics did NOT increase tax revenues under Ronald Reagan – Reagan cut taxes for the rich drastically early on, based on the concept of “supply-side economics.” Basically, under this theory, the less tax everyone pays, the more they produce with the money they save, because they will create jobs and more income opportunities for everyone else.

Unfortunately, this only works when it comes to people with little or no disposable income. The family in the chart above making $30-40,000 per year was likely to use that $467 to make a mortgage payment, or perhaps put a down payment on a car, or pay some utility bills. But the millionaire family saving $281,033 isn’t likely to do much with that money, and they’re certainly not likely to go out and “create jobs” with it.

And while the average right winger will tell you we don't really know that, we have numbers to prove it. This is how much money our Treasury took in during each year of the Reagan era (The “Constant” figures are in 1987 dollars):

FY Actual Constant

1980 517.1 728.1

1981 599.3 766.6

1982 617.8 738.2

1983 600.6 684.3

1984 666.6 730.4

1985 734.1 776.6

1986 769.1 790

1987 854.1 854.1

1988 909 877.3

1989 990.7 916.2

1990 1031.3 914.1

As you can see, in inflation-adjusted dollars, revenues didn’t increase significantly until Reagan RAISED TAXES on most of us. Note the first significant increase in revenue isn't until 1987

Exploding The Reagan Myth What is it about Ronald Reagan that makes so many people on the right and the left go all mushy? Republicans talk about the man as if he was a demigod of some sort. During the GOP primaries, he was mentioned in nearly every debate, and always in glowing terms. Democrats rightly note that many of Reagan's policies would be considered “too liberal” by the current Republican Party, which has been teabagged into what should be oblivion, but they seem almost too afraid of offending "Reagan Democrats" to actually criticize him.

I think it's time we cleared the air, and told the truth about Saint Reagan. Let's start with the fact that not only was he not the saint he's made out to be; he really wasn't that great of a president. That he was slightly more competent than either of the two Bushes does not put him on a par with Lincoln, Washington or FDR. But the myths about Reagan are so persistent that even now, even some lefties actually compare President Obama to him. There is no comparison to be made between Reagan and Obama. Obama is actually competent.

For your edification, and so that you can roll your eyes at anyone who tells you how wonderful Saint Reagan was, here are refutations of some of the most common myths. Enjoy.

Ronald Reagan did NOT cut taxes for most people -- Like George W. Bush, Reagan reduced taxes only on the very rich. Unlike George W. Bush, he actually raised them on the rest of us, when all was said and done. When Reagan took office, the top tax rate was 50%. When he left office, the top tax rate was 28%. That’s a 44% decrease in the tax rate, just for making a lot of money. Even during the initial round of tax cuts, no one else got a tax cut even close to that.

Not only that, but the modest decrease for the middle class and working class didn't last long, in any case. Payroll taxes went up significantly when Social Security and Medicare were overhauled beginning in 1983, and when the income tax system was “simplified” in the Tax “Reform” Act of 1986, a lot of deductions that the middle class had depended upon up to that point went away, in favor of the “standard deduction.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office ("Congressional Study: Tax Progressivity and Income Distribution," 26 March 1990. CIS#H782-11), while the effective tax rate for the rich went down, the tax rate for everyone else went up. This is how taxes for various families changed during the Reagan years.

Quintile 1980 1985 1990 % Change -1980-1990

Lowest 20% 8.4 10.6 9.7 16.1

Second 20% 15.7 16.1 16.7 6

Third 20% 20 19.3 20.3 1.2

Fourth 20% 23 21.7 22.5 -2.2

Highest 20% 27.3 24 25.8 -5.5

Top 1% 31.8 24.9 27.2 -14.4

That’s right; numbers don’t lie. Taxes for the rich went down under Reagan, and taxes for the poor and middle class went up.

Getting back to the Tax “Reform” Act of 1986. Everyone’s income taxes went down a bit with that one, but it didn’t even come close to covering the increase in payroll taxes that the non-rich had experienced just a year or two earlier. The initial intent of this reform, which was led by Rep. Bill Bradley, a true progressive in many ways, was to overhaul the tax code and make it simpler and more fair. We got the "simpler," but the "more fair" was lacking in the end. This is the effective income (NOT payroll) tax rate, when Reagan oversaw tax “reform:”

Income Bracket Size of Tax Cut Savings per Tax Return

Under $10,000 11% $37

10-20,000 6 69

20-30,000 11 300

30-40,000 11 467

40-50,000 16 1,000

50-75,000 16 1,523

75-100,000 18 3,034

100-200,000 22 7,203

200-500,000 27 24,603

500,000 - 1 million 34 86,084

Over $1 million 31 281,033

Numbers do not lie; taxes for most people went up under Ronald Reagan, not down.

To his credit, Reagan did expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helped the very poor escape taxes, but it left out the middle class for the most part. And let's get real here; the fact that he had to raise taxes right after he lowered them should demonstrate to folks that low tax rates do not increase tax revenues.

Which leads us to another Reagan myth:

Supply-side economics did NOT increase tax revenues under Ronald Reagan – Reagan cut taxes for the rich drastically early on, based on the concept of “supply-side economics.” Basically, under this theory, the less tax everyone pays, the more they produce with the money they save, because they will create jobs and more income opportunities for everyone else.

Unfortunately, this only works when it comes to people with little or no disposable income. The family in the chart above making $30-40,000 per year was likely to use that $467 to make a mortgage payment, or perhaps put a down payment on a car, or pay some utility bills. But the millionaire family saving $281,033 isn’t likely to do much with that money, and they’re certainly not likely to go out and “create jobs” with it.

And while the average right winger will tell you we don't really know that, we have numbers to prove it. This is how much money our Treasury took in during each year of the Reagan era (The “Constant” figures are in 1987 dollars):

FY Actual Constant

1980 517.1 728.1

1981 599.3 766.6

1982 617.8 738.2

1983 600.6 684.3

1984 666.6 730.4

1985 734.1 776.6

1986 769.1 790

1987 854.1 854.1

1988 909 877.3

1989 990.7 916.2

1990 1031.3 914.1

As you can see, in inflation-adjusted dollars, revenues didn’t increase significantly until Reagan RAISED TAXES on most of us. Note the first significant increase in revenue isn't until 1987.

The Republicans - and Romney - want to reduce food stamps drastically. With 1 in 6 people on food stamps, do they think none of them vote? That all the poor are Democrats? All the unemployed are Democrats?

The amazing thing the Obamedia is trying to do is to pretend that any criticism of Obama by a Republican is wicked and evil, no matter how many things Obama screws up. Afterall, it is rags like Time that promote the idea that to disagree with Obama is to be a racist.

Obama's middle east policy has blown up, and the media blames Romney for pointing that out.

Obama's economic results are giving us more poor, a shrinking middle class, fewer jobs, huge deficits, a failed medical reform, more taxes, and the defense is that it is Bush's fault and Romney is rich so he is evil.

You childish Obamatons have left critical thinking at the door.

When RomenyRyan wins in November, will you be able to go, or will you flood the crisis hotlines of America?

Am I better off than I was at the end of 2008? Definitely. 100% better according to my financial advisor.

I know what our President wants to do, and by replacing as many R's as posssible he may get to.

I have no idea what awaits me under R and R. Other than what can be inferred from their few talking points and the Ryan budget. That is, I can count on losing some of the "loopholes" I currently enjoy that keeps my tax rate in the 20% range. Home mortgage deduction, and charitable contribution deduction goodbye under R and R. Secondly the retirement I have saved better cover all of my medical and living expenses as I retire 10 years out. R and R will have decimated anythig that ressembled Medicare and SS.

There is no doubt as a middle class American who works his arse off to support my family and community, that I will be better off under the Democratic platform and another term of Obama. As desperate as you rightwingers have clearly become, I can feel confident that with my help in getting voters to turn out we will have America back on track due to sound Democratic Leadership.

If Romney wins, it just means I'll have to work even harder to fulfill the American Dream, and so will you hunter. I'll gladly compete for the bigger slice of pie. Good luck and be safe with the hunting season upon us, assuming that's what your handle's about.

Certainly you meant to point out how Pollosi has become amazingly wealthy off of Obama and her position, or how the "green" energy scammer pals of Obama all got super rich, or how under Obama the average federal worker makes something like over 40% of what private sector works get for the same work?

To blame Romney Ryan for having a reasonable plan to help all Americans become better off as a defense of Obama's complete failure is something only an extremist would do.

More proof of Obama's tinkering not paying off. The modern US economy has been going along for more than 100 years, then suddenly this guy comes along and thinks he has a new toolkit. It hasn't worked - time to move him out.

I'd say something about this one, but I'm pretty sure this one will get no airtime.

Romney opening mouth and inserting his foot in it 3 times now on the Libya tragedy will be taking up all available airtime for the rest of the week.

And just to add, this was pretty awesome. Romney getting schooled by Obama:

"Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later, and as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that," Obama said during an interview with CBS. "It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.

All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.

Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.

Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.

When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.

Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.

Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers' money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.

Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free market capitalism in the 19th century was a period of an unprecedented rise in philanthropic activity. Going even further back in time, in the 18th century Adam Smith, the patron saint of free market economics, was discovered from records examined after his death to have privately made large charitable donations, far beyond what might have been expected from someone of his income level.

Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life.

Although the big word on the left is "compassion," the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state.

Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama's reelection chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was reelected in a landslide after his first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month, and in some months was over 20 percent.

The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes -- unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.

The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media -- whether on billboards or on television -- for people to get on food stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available.

The intelligentsia have for decades been promoting the idea that there should be no stigma to accepting government handouts. Living off the taxpayers is portrayed as a "right" or -- more ponderously -- as part of a "social contract."

You may not recall signing any such contract, but it sounds poetic and high-toned. Moreover, it wins votes among the gullible, and that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.

Good for all who have volunteered and advocated with their personal time, or given their hard earned money to a charity. Your promotion of one party over another about charitable giving, based on a known conservative's view is insidious. Does that really matter? I haven't begrudged anyone who is willing to work with me to help some charity, and certainly have not asked their political affiliation. Giving is a personal choice and any amount should be appreciated. If giving money or time is proof of compassion, then I guess Bill Gates is Jesus Christ. Of course this is ridiculous. Too bad the poorest amoung us aren't considered compassionate because they need to sell their blood to buy food to survive instead of donating it.

Now on the issue of what party may have more empathy to those who need help, or who desire more personal freedom. I'd think a look at the party platform may help. In that regard you will need to draw your own conclusions, and vote for that which aligns with your beliefs.

Its easy to see where you stand 73 and glad to see you contribute to humanity. I on the other hand, stand for the Democratic party. I also work hard, volunteer nearly everyday for some cause, advocate for three charities, and contribute a percentage of my hard earned dollars above what Romney reported. I do this while working in the private sector for big oil 40-50 hours a week. I'm not retired with time on my hands, and have kids to usher through this world. I love and let live. So who's more compassionate me or Romney? Does it matter?

Gramps, you need to compare other sites to these your Conservative drones, and their talking points. I read some Conservative sites, and review some liberal sites. Somewhere in between lies the truth. This article you posted is quite odd, or just plain nuts.

Obama says “The Bible calls on us to be our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper, and I believe that as a public servant, I must do my part to answer that call,” but his half-brother in Kenya lives in shanty town.

Instead of supporting his illegal alien Aunt and Uncle himself, Obama had them unlawfully benefit from American welfare programs.:

Christ did say that but I don't want to hear the president, no matter who it is, preach to me. Make your case based on human decency and the fact that the presence of large numbers of poor citizens is bad for society.

Jut think, if Romney wins, we can have a guy preach to us who belongs to a church whose women can't get into their versions of heaven unless their husbands invite them. Single women are "married" to someone after they die so that they can get into heaven. Sometimes, the men to whom these dead single women are married have other wives so, in fact, the LDS Church still practices polygamy. They just do it in the afterlife.

Think about that all you rightwingers who want more religion in government. Be careful what you wish for because it may come back to bite you in the butt.